10 search hits

Several articulatory strategies are available during the production of /u/, all resulting in a similar acoustic output. /u/ has two main constrictions, at the velum and at the lips. A perturbation of either constriction can be compensated at the other one, e.g wider constriction at the velum by more lip protrusion, wider lip opening by more tongue retraction. This study investigates whether speakers use this relation under perturbation. Six speakers were provided with palatal prostheses which were worn for two weeks. Speakers were instructed to make a serious attempt to produce normal speech. Their speech was recorded via EMA and acoustics several times over the adaptation period. Formant values of /u/-productions were measured. Velar constriction width and lip protrusion were estimated. For four speakers a correlation between constriction width and lip protrusion was found. A negative correlation between lip protrusion and F1 or F2 could sometimes be observed, but no correlation occurred between constriction size and either of the formants. The results show that under perturbation speakers use motor equivalent strategies in order to adapt. The correlation between constriction size and lip protrusion is stronger than in studies investigating unperturbed speech. This could be because under perturbation speakers are inclined to try out several strategies in order to reach the acoustic target and the co-variability might thus be greater.

The study investigates the contribution of tactile and auditory feedback in the adaptation of /s/ towards a palatal prosthesis. Five speakers were recorded via electromagnetic articulography, at first without the prosthesis, then with the prosthesis and auditory feedback masked, and finally with the prosthesis and auditory feedback available. Tongue position, jaw position and acoustic centre of gravity of productions of the sound were measured. The results show that the initial adaptation attempts without auditory feedback are dependent on the prosthesis type and directed towards reaching the original tongue palate contact pattern. Speakers with a prosthesis which retracted the alveolar ridge retracted the tongue. Speakers with a prosthesis which did not change the place of the alveolar ridge did not retract the tongue. All speakers lowered the jaw. In a second adaptation step with auditory feedback available speakers reorganised tongue and jaw movements in order to produce more subtle acoustic characteristics of the sound such as the high amplitude noise which is typical for sibilants.

A two-week perturbation EMA-experiment was carried out with palatal prostheses. Articulatory effort for five speakers was assessed by means of peak acceleration and jerk during the tongue tip gestures from /t/ towards /i, e, o, y, u/. After a period of no change speakers showed an increase in these values. Towards the end of the experiment the values decreased. The results are interpreted as three phases of carrying out changes in the internal model. At first, the complete production system is shifted in relation to the palatal change, afterwards speakers explore different production mechanisms which involves more articulatory effort. This second phase can be seen as a training phase where several articulatory strategies are explored. In the third phase speakers start to select an optimal movement strategy to produce the sounds so that the values decrease.

The palate shape of four speakers was changed by a prosthesis which either lowered the palate or retracted the alveoles. Subjects wore the prosthesis for two weeks and were recorded several times via EMA. Results of articulatory measurements show that speakers use different compensation methods at different stages of the adaptation. They lower the tongue immediately after the insertion of the prosthesis. Other compensation methods as for example lip protrusion are only acquired after longer practising periods. The results are interpreted as supporting the existence of different mappings between motor commands, vocal tract shape and auditory-acoustic target.

Articulatory token-to-token variability not only depends on linguistic aspects like the phoneme inventory of a given language but also on speaker specific morphological and motor constraints. As has been noted previously (Perkell (1997), Mooshammer et al. (2004)) , speakers with coronally high ”domeshaped” palates exhibit more articulatory variability than speakers with coronally low ”flat” palates. One explanation for that is based on perception oriented control by the speaker. The influence of articulatory variation on the cross sectional area and consequently on the acoustics should be greater for flat palates than for domeshaped ones. This should force speakers with flat palates to place their tongue very precisely whereas speakers with domeshaped palates might tolerate a greater variability. A second explanation could be a greater amount of lateral linguo-palatal contact for flat palates holding the tongue in position. In this study both hypotheses were tested.

In this paper the issue of the nature of the representations of the speech production task in the speaker's brain is addressed in a production-perception interaction framework. Since speech is produced to be perceived, it is hypothesized that its production is associated for the speaker with the generation of specific physical characteristics that are for the listeners the objects of speech perception. Hence, in the first part of the paper, four reference theories of speech perception are presented, in order to guide and to constrain the search for possible correlates of the speech production task in the physical space: the Acoustic Invariance Theory, the Adaptive Variability Theory, the Motor Theory and the Direct-Realist Theory. Possible interpretations of these theories in terms of representations of the speech production task are proposed and analyzed. In a second part, a few selected experimental studies are presented, which shed some light on this issue. In the conclusion, on the basis of the joint analysis of theoretical and experimental aspects presented in the paper, it is proposed that representations of the speech production task are multimodal, and that a hierarchy exists among the different modalities, the acoustic modality having the highest level of priority. It is also suggested that these representations are not associated with invariant characteristics, but with regions of the acoustic, orosensory and motor control spaces.

Articulatory token-to-token variability not only depends on linguistic aspects like the phoneme inventory of a given language but also on speaker specific morphological and motor constraints. As has been noted previously (Perkell (1997), Mooshammer et al. (2004)), speakers with coronally high "domeshaped" palates exhibit more articulatory variability than speakers with coronally low "flat" palates. One explanation for that is based on perception oriented control by the speaker. The influence of articulatory variation on the cross sectional area and consequently on the acoustics should be greater for flat palates than for domeshaped ones. This should force speakers with flat palates to place their tongue very precisely whereas speakers with domeshaped palates might tolerate a greater variability. A second explanation could be a greater amount of lateral linguo-palatal contact for flat palates holding the tongue in position. In this study both hypotheses were tested.
In order to investigate the influence of the palate shape on the variability of the acoustic output a modelling study was carried out. Parallely, an EPG experiment was conducted in order to investigate the relationship between palate shape, articulatory variability and linguo-palatal contact.
Results from the modelling study suggest that the acoustic variability resulting from a certain amount of articulatory variability is higher for flat palates than for domeshaped ones. Results from the EPG experiment with 20 speakers show that (1.) speakers with a flat palate exhibit a very low articulatory variability whereas speakers with a domeshaped palate vary, (2.) there is less articulatory variability if there is lots of linguo-palatal contact and (3.) there is no relationship between the amount of lateral linguo-palatal contact and palate shape. The results suggest that there is a relationship between token-to-token variability and palate shape, however, it is not that the two parameters correlate, but that speakers with a flat palate always have a low variability because of constraints of the variability range of the acoustic output whereas speakers with a domeshaped palate may choose the degree of variability. Since linguo-palatal contact and variability correlate it is assumed that linguo-palatal contact is a means for reducing the articulatory variability.

Studying kinematic behavior in speech production is an indispensable and fruitful methodology in order to describe for instance phonemic contrasts, allophonic variations, prosodic effects in articulatory movements. More intriguingly, it is also interpreted with respect to its underlying control mechanisms. Several interpretations have been borrowed from motor control studies of arm, eye, and limb movements. They do either explain kinematics with respect to a fine tuned control by the Central Nervous System (CNS) or they take into account a combination of influences arising from motor control strategies at the CNS level and from the complex physical properties of the peripheral speech apparatus. We assume that the latter is more realistic and ecological. The aims of this article are: first, to show, via a literature review related to the so called '1/3 power law' in human arm motor control, that this debate is of first importance in human motor control research in general. Second, to study a number of speech specific examples offering a fruitful framework to address this issue. However, it is also suggested that speech motor control differs from general motor control principles in the sense that it uses specific physical properties such as vocal tract limitations, aerodynamics and biomechanics in order to produce the relevant sounds. Third, experimental and modelling results are described supporting the idea that the three properties are crucial in shaping speech kinematics for selected speech phenomena. Hence, caution should be taken when interpreting kinematic results based on experimental data alone.